The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) Blog

F/A-22 crash should be a wake-up call

The (fortunately not-fatal) crash of a F/A-22 Raptor this Monday at Nellis Air Force Base should bring this Cold War-era weapons system back into focus.  While we await the answers to why the crash occured, the big picture reveals that we don't need the plane at all.

At a cost of $250 million+ a copy, the plane has, is and will be a drain on the American taxpayer.  It's a system that we don't need because it addresses a threat doesn't exist or could foreseeably exist for decades.  After all, Al Qaeda doesn't have an air force.  Meanwhile this whale of a program is distorting the military's priorities.

Even Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld addressed this issue well yesterday in a USA Today op-ed:

"Working with Congress, the [Defense] department canceled at least two multibillion-dollar Cold War-era Army weapons systems: the Crusader artillery system and the Comanche helicopter. Undoubtedly, others will be considered. Any changes will most likely be opposed by special interests wedded to their systems, but nonetheless, we must continue to shift resources so we will be more adept at meeting today's challenges." (emphasis POGO's)

The Raptor is a perfect example of a Cold War-era weapons system being propped up by powerful corporate interests, aided by Congress.  However, the monetary costs are possibly costing lives.  While billions are wasted, our soldiers rummage through trash to armor their vehicles.

No-Information Warfare

Does Mr. High-Tech Revolution-in-Military-Affairs Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld even have an email address?  Apparently not.  POGO tried to obtain his email to no avail beginning this Tuesday.  You can, however, snail mail to him.

-----Original Message-----
From: [redacted] [mailto:[redacted]@osd.mil]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 1:56 PM
To: 'Eric Miller, Project On Government Oversight'
Subject: RE: question from Eric Miller

I've been told there is not an email venue for the Secretary.  Sorry I couldn't be of more help on this.

[redacted] 

[redacted]

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Miller, Project On Government Oversight [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 7:06 AM
To: [redacted]
Subject: RE: question from Eric Miller

Thank you very much.

-Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: [redacted] [mailto:[redacted]@osd.mil]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 6:26 AM
To: 'Eric Miller, Project On Government Oversight'
Subject: RE: question from Eric Miller

I would think so, and if there isn't, there should be.  I'm still checking though, I haven't given up.

[redacted]

[redacted]

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Miller, Project On Government Oversight [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 4:03 PM
To: [redacted]
Subject: RE: question from Eric Miller

[redacted]:

Thanks. Isn't there a generic Office of the Secretary of Defense email address?

-Eric Miller

-----Original Message-----
From: [redacted] [mailto:[redacted]@osd.mil]
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 3:33 PM
To: 'Eric Miller, Project On Government Oversight'
Subject: RE: question from Eric Miller

As of right now, I have not been able to obtain an email you could use to write to the Secretary.  You can, however, mail to him.  Is that something you'd be interested in.

[redacted] 

[redacted]

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Miller, Project On Government Oversight [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 1:44 PM
To: [redacted]
Subject: question from Eric Miller

[redacted]:

Is there some sort of public email address for Secretary Rumsfeld?

Thanks.

-Eric Miller

 

Eric Miller

Senior Defense Investigator

Project On Government Oversight

202/347-1122

fax - 202-347-1116

The Stealthy Case of the Up-Armored Humvees

The latest Pentagon damage control is turning into a Tom Clancy novel.

It all began last week when a Tennessee National Guard member headed for Iraq asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld a rather embarrassing question at a town meeting in Kuwait:

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?"

The question was followed by shouts of approval and applause from the estimated 2,300 soldiers who had assembled to see Rumsfeld’s road show. That was the question that resulted in the now-infamous and oft-criticized Rumsfeld response that “You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might wish or want to have.”

First came the finger-pointing. The day after Rumsfeld's remarks, the president of Armor Holdings plant that makes up-armored Humvees said it has the capacity to increase the number of armored Humvees from 450 to 550 a month. The Pentagon said it didn’t know the company could make more armored Humvees, and as a result it was going to ask that the company increase production.

But here’s the head scatcher: On October 10, two months earlier, the Army issued a news release announcing a contract modification with Armor Holdings, Inc. “This is intended to increase the production rate from 450 to 550 per month.”

Huh? Is this a case of Pentagon right-hand, left-hand confusion? Did the Army see an opportunity to make it look like it was responding to the troops concerns? Or was this just another opportunity to get more money or further confuse the public about the huge Pentagon budget?

Obviously, there will be more to come.

Iraq: Whose Choice Was It?

The following are comments stemming from Rumsfeld's remarks that POGO blogged on last week.

Although POGO doesn't take a position on the Iraq war, you probably do. Feel free to post in the comments, but please keep it above the belt.

----------

'The Army You Have': Whose Choice Was It?

The Washington Post

Friday, December 10, 2004; Page A36

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's statement that "you go to war with the Army you have . . . not the Army you might want or wish to have" is disturbing in the context of operations in Iraq ["Rumsfeld Gets Earful From Troops," front page, Dec. 9].

The United States was not attacked by Iraq. This war was President Bush's decision, urged on by hawks such as Mr. Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz.

When you pick a fight, your soldiers should have the tools to finish it. They are, and have been, saying that they don't have all of the tools; 1,276 service members have lost their lives in Iraq, some possibly because they did not have the right equipment for the mission. Mr. Rumsfeld should at least lose his job.

JEFF LUDWIG

Gaithersburg

I couldn't disagree more [w/ Jeff]. The United States was attacked by Iraq, repeatedly so, during our decade long stint patrolling the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq. From a merely legal technical perspective the agreement reached by the U.S. and Iraq to cease hostilities after the Persian Gulf war provided proper justification for war. No peace treaty was ever signed and the Iraqi government was under certain obligations that were not being met.

All that glitters…

At first glance, President Bush’s latest selection of a former New York City Police Commissioner for Homeland Security Secretary does not seem too far off the mark. But scratch thinly beneath his surface and you will find not gold, but layer upon layer of complicating little facts that could possibly compromise his objectivity and ethics appeal.

Allied with the well-known former mayor of New York, Kerik is an executive with consulting firms Giuliani Partners and Giuliani-Kerik. In this capacity, Kerik has served as a consultant to several influential companies, such as WorldCom. Kerik also provided security advice to some pharmaceutical interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, which works to block the importation of cheaper prescription drugs to seniors from Canada. He has consulted with and currently sits on the board of Taser International, the stun gun company from which Kerik has cashed in on $6.2 million in stock options this year. In 2003 Giuliani Partners was hired by powerful nuclear industry company Entergy, where Kerik offered security advice for the controversial Indian Point nuclear power plant.

Such thick ties to the security industry make Kerik’s integrity as the frontman for Homeland Security questionable. According to an AP story today, an official at Giuliani Partners has assured that Kerik will sever all ties to the two security consulting firms. The White House says Kerik will step down from the Taser International board of directors when he assumes his position. But these ties aren’t old and from the past; the conflict of interest Kerik presents is overwhelming. Kerik is thickly entwined with the security industry now and unfit to take a position as a truly impartial public servant.

It’s been speculated that Kerik landed the high profile Homeland Security position for his merits or for his tight connections with Rudy Giuliani. He already had one crack at an administration position – in 2003 Kerik was appointed by Bush to head up the Iraqi police force, but he left the post just four months into the job. He said he needed a vacation.

Needless to say, this may not be the person we want in charge of Homeland Security.

UPDATE: Kerik is withdrawing from his nomination, NPR reports:

In a surprise move, former New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik abruptly withdrew his nomination as President Bush's choice to be homeland security secretary Friday night, saying questions have arisen about the immigration status of a housekeeper and nanny he employed.

The decision caught the White House off guard...

MORE: Newsweek has an article that may shed light on another reason Kerik may have resigned.  In 1998 Kerik was issued an arrest warrant for lawsuits related to upaid bills on a condo. [via Talking Pts Memo]

Keep on Truck'n

Defense Tech has been all over the armor story.  While the Humvee armor situation is far from ideal, it's not nearly as bad as the one trucks and the troops that drive them face.  And it looks like the Pentagon is dipping into the payroll to fund the armor.  "From the accounts to pay soldiers in the field." (emphasis POGO's, but the sentence is shocking without the italics)  Congress would be crazy to let the troops go without pay when the money probably runs out in May; a supplemental spending bill will pass to get around that problem.  But you'd think there'd be more foresight at the Pentagon in the first place.

In October, Phillip Carter wrote in Slate on why Army trucks need to be armored:

...[in Iraq] truck drivers are front-line soldiers: A supply convoy driving up the Main Supply Route from Baghdad to Fallujah is as likely to see action as an infantry patrol, if not more so because the insurgents know the convoy is an easier target.

Homeland Security Superman canned

Clark Kent Ervin, the hard-working Inspector General at Homeland Security, got canned Wednesday night.  According to an anonymous former DHS employee, "This [getting rid of Ervin] actually is being done through the White House."  Ervin performed the nation a service through his great work in exposing fraud, waste and poor security at airports and elsewhere.

Ervin wanted to stay on with his position, but it was probably because of, rather than in spite of, his diligent investigations that he was let go.  The misleading explanation from the White House, according to a spokesperson is "His [Ervin's] term expired and that's that."  But normally inspector generals are not just let go.  They usually have their position's renewed at the end of their term or rotate to different agencies.  The White House did not want Ervin in his position because he wasn't toeing the line--he was actually doing his job.

GOP Rep: Terror site list 'a joke'

Ouch!

Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle and experts trashed Homeland Security efforts to create a list of likely targets for terrorists.  Such a list would identify sites that should need protection or contingency plans in the event of an attack.  Apparently though, there are miniature golf courses and water parks on the secret list so far (it was supposed to complete by now), but some major sites--left unidentified in the article--are not there. 

Here's some choice quotes from the USA Today article:

Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla: "Their list is a joke" & It is “an exercise in full employment for bureaucrats, rather than a realistic way to make the country safer.”

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif: “I honestly don't know what they've been doing over there” & “I think you could take the average mayor or member of Congress and give them a month, and they would come up with a better list.”

Michael O'Hanlon, a homeland security expert at the Brookings Institution: The list so far has been “a stapling exercise.”

Rep. Christopher Cox, R-Calif., chairman of the Homeland Security Committee: His committee has a “concern about what's in the database and what isn't and how it was compiled. We need a credible … database in order to identify the vulnerabilities.”

CIA Retaliation and Intelligence Manipulation?

The Washington Post has a doozy of a story today.  A once-undercover CIA operative says that not only was he asked by higher ups in the Agency to falsify intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, but that he was retaliated against by CIA managers for refusing to do so and trying to report it. 

This is an example of why whistleblower protections need to be strengthened and extended to intelligence agencies.  This is what they did to the officer to thwart his concerns and retaliate (from the WP):

In 2002, the [CIA operative's] lawsuit says, the CIA officer "attempted to report routine intelligence" from a human asset " but was thwarted by CIA superiors." It goes on to say that he was subsequently approached by a senior desk officer "who insisted that Plaintiff falsify his reporting," and that when he refused, the "management" of the CIA's Counterproliferation Division ordered that he "remove himself from any further 'handling' " of the unnamed asset, who is referred elsewhere in the document as "a highly respected human asset."

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington on Friday and placed in the public court docket yesterday after a judge said it could proceed using a pseudonym for the plaintiff, says his superiors falsely promised him that they would report his findings to President Bush and falsely claimed that they had disseminated some of his other reports through normal channels.

In 2003, the lawsuit says, the CIA officer learned of the counterintelligence investigation of allegations that he was having sex with a female asset. Five days later, it says, he was told that a promotion was being canceled "because of pressure from the DDO [Deputy Director of Operations] James Pavitt."

With the recent Porter Goss memo which directs the CIA to "support the administration and its policies in our work," the threat of politization through cherry-picked and falsified reporting is on the rise.   We need people who see wrongdoing to step forward.  This case is just the latest in a trend, where government agencies silence truth-tellers who attempt to fix problems from the inside--forcing them to go to the press--if they're willing to pay the price of their job.

MIA: Military Equipment

The Defense Department is almost 30 years late on creating a system for keeping track of its equipment, spare parts, and other inventory according to a little noticed Government Accountability Office (GAO) report. Deadlines were missed in 1980, 1995, and now 2004. The GAO says the Pentagon probably won't make the new deadline of 2010 either.  An earlier GAO report noted that the Army lost $1.2 billion in material when it started shipping out for Operation Iraqi Freedom, resulting in "units cannibalizing major equipment items." One of the the troops at Rumsfeld's town hall briefing today asked about "shortages and antiquated equipment." More significant, the top U.S. commander in Iraq complained last winter that spare parts shortages were so severe that he could not "continue to support sustained combat operations." According to the Washington Post, the commander noted that he was "'struggling just to maintain . . . relatively low readiness rates' on key combat systems, such as M-1 Abrams tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, anti-mortar radars and Black Hawk helicopters" with an average wait of 40 days for critical spare parts. The Pentagon claimed to have cut the wait to 24 days by October, 2004.

Stryker VS Ford Taurus

In recent weeks, the Army has ratcheted up its public relations machine touting the merits of its latest combat toy being deployed in Iraq, the $3 million-plus per copy wheeled armored vehicle known as the Stryker. With the insurgency’s offensive heating up recently in Mosul, Iraq, the Stryker is seeing some action and it’s obviously become tougher to keep the 300 or so Stryker armored vehicles out of harms way.

Case in point: Two Army soldiers were killed on Dec. 4 when their Stryker “received enemy fire during convoy operations.” (There have been no details released yet by the Department of Defense as to specifics surrounding the incident, what type of fire hit the Stryker, or whether the new armored vehicle was destroyed.) For some time now, POGO has been monitoring the Stryker’s development and testing, and we continue to have questions on the vehicle’s survivability from certain types of enemy fire, namely rocket-propelled grenades and roadside bombs (improvised explosive devices.)

We’ve also been watching the press reports, which have generally been very positive in recent weeks, but lacking in detail or supporting data to merit such glowing performance ratings.

So we asked Lonnie Shoultz, a former paratrooper with the 101st Airborne Division and former Green Beret with the 5th Special Forces Group and one of the Stryker’s most vocal critics, what he thought about one of the stories that appeared in a defense publication recently. Here’s the story and his comments in red after the jump:

Fragging Rumsfeld

The boots on the ground give Defense Secretary Rumsfeld a piece of their mind [via Defense Tech]:

Army Spc. Thomas Wilson, for example, of the 278th Regimental Combat Team that is comprised mainly of citizen soldiers of the Tennessee Army National Guard, asked Rumsfeld in a question-and-answer session why vehicle armor is still in short supply, nearly two years after the start of the war that ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?" Wilson asked. A big cheer arose from the approximately 2,300 soldiers in the cavernous hangar who assembled to see and hear the secretary of defense.

Rumseld's response?  Pretty weak and frankly, insulting:

"You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up."

MORE: Wonkette puts her charming "spin" on Rumsfeld's remarks.

AND MORE: The Pentagon had a press conference discussing armored Humvees today.  Apparently to quell the torrent of attention from the embarrassing Rumsfeld Q&A with more tongue-twisting.  A Pentagon official said:

"We have saved more lives with tactics, techniques and procedures than with armor."

But an Army spokeperson had to admit, at the very least that:

"People like having that security, that's for sure."